Why We Must Defend Writers

4月27日星期二晚,面对来自世界各地的著名作家,加拿大作家玛格丽特·阿特伍德(Margaret Atwood)接受了美国笔会颁发给她的文学服务奖(American PEN Literary Service Award)。 在这次颁奖会上,阿特伍德发表了精彩的获奖演说。在演说中,阿特伍德女士畅谈了要保证作家免遭审查制度干扰的重要性,以及小说推动人前进的力量。下面就是阿特伍德女士的演讲文稿(我对某些语句加粗以示强调),与大家分享。【PS: 在此要感谢新浪微博上 @上海译文@白不说,通过他们,我才获得了这一信息,才可以顺藤摸瓜,找到了原文。】

Why We Must Defend Writers

Margaret Atwood

Dear American PEN—and many survivors of battles over the years—thank you very much. We started PEN Canada with $20 and a roll of stamps. It got bigger. So did yours.

I thank you very much for this award. I am joining a list of very distinguished writers, and I probably don’t deserve to be joining it; but as the theologically pessimistic used to remark, if we all got what we deserved, we’d be boiling in oil.

I hope however that this recognition is not the equivalent of the gold watch to the retiring manager. No, surely not! For writers can’t retire, nor can they be fired: As we hear constantly from those who think there should be no arts grants, writers don’t have real jobs. That’s true, in a way: They have no employers. Or rather their employers are their readers: which imposes on them a truly Kafkaesque burden of responsibility and even guilt, for how can you tell whether you’re coming up to the standards of people you don’t even know? Publishing a book is like stuffing a note into a bottle and hurling it into the sea. Some bottles drown, some come safe to land, where the notes are read and then possibly cherished, or else misinterpreted, or else understood all too well by those who hate the message. You never know who your readers might be.

Or else you find out in an unpleasant way: You’re arrested, you are condemned, you are tortured, you are shot, you disappear. Those doing the shooting and the torturing, whether they are from the left or the right, whether they represent theocracies or secular totalitarian dictatorships or extreme factions, all have one thing in common: They wish to silence the human voice, or all human voices that do not sing their songs. They wish to indulge their sense of power, which is best done by grinding underfoot those who cannot retaliate. Writers—artists in general—are easy prey for the silencers. They don’t have armies. They can be cut out from the herd—they‘ve already cut themselves out, by daring to speak—and few in their own countries will be foolhardy enough to defend them.

Voices can be silenced, but the human voice cannot. Our languages are what make us fully human—no other creature has anything like our rich and complex vocabularies and grammars. Each language is unique: To lose one is to lose a range of feeling and a way of looking at life that, like a living species that becomes extinct, can never be replaced. Human narrative skills are found in every language, and are very old: We all have them. We writers merely use them in what we fondly believe are more complex ways. But whether written down or not, stories move—from hand to paper to eye to mouth, from mouth to ear.

And stories move us. This is their power. Written stories are frozen voices that come to life when we read them. No other art form involves us in the same way—allows us to be with another human being—to feel joy when he laughs, to share her sorrow, to follow the twists and turns of his plotting and scheming, to realize her insufficiencies and failures and absurdities, to grasp the tools of her resistance—from within the mind itself. Such experience—such knowledge from within—makes us feel that we are not alone in our flawed humanity.

None of us are so mad as to suppose that all books are really good things. Mein Kampf was a book. So we are constantly enmeshed in a choice-of-evils struggle: Which is worse, to allow free access, or to start censoring? And once the censoring begins, who shall be in control of it, and where will it stop? Nor is such blue-penciling a habit of ruthless dictators only.

I suppose we at PEN have an optimistic view of human nature: that, given full access to everything on the menu, people on the whole will reject the tyrannical, the sadistic, and the repugnant. Also optimistic is our conviction that if we battle on behalf of the ever-swelling number of novelists, journalists, poets, and playwrights who have been condemned for their writing, at least some of the battles will be won. As many of them have been.

Though some have not. Each time one of these battles is lost, the muffling silence creeps closer. And it’s in silence and in secrecy that the worst horrors breed.

Yet sooner or later—we trust—even these hidden stories will be told. The messengers in such cases are seldom welcome; yet they are necessary, and must be protected. For if we cannot acknowledge that the shadows exist—the shadows cast by others, as well as the ones we cast ourselves—how can we hope to dispel them?

科马克·麦卡锡获索尔·贝娄奖

以下资料来源自5月13日《中华读书报》王胡的报道:

75岁的老作家科马克·麦卡锡(Cormac McCarthy)5月4日获得了美国笔会(PEN)颁发的终身成就奖——第二届笔会/索尔·贝娄奖,并获奖金25000美元(约合人民币17万元)。

该奖以已故美国大作家、1976年诺贝尔文学奖得主索尔·贝娄命名,每两年颁发一次,2007年的首届贝娄奖颁给了美国大作家菲利普·罗斯。

麦卡锡曾以小说《骏马》(All the Pretty Horses)和《路》(The Road)先后获得1992年的国家图书奖和2007年的普利策奖。根据其小说《老无所依》(No Country for Old Men,2005)改编的同名电影获得了四项奥斯卡奖,包括最重要的最佳影片奖。

六年前,上海译文出版社出版了麦卡锡的中文版“边境三部曲”:《骏马》、《穿越》和《平原上的城市》。

《尼德兰》荣获2009年“笔友会/福克纳奖”

今天,“笔友会/福克纳小说奖”(PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction)基金会宣布,约瑟夫·奥尼尔(Joseph O’Neill)的小说《尼德兰》(Netherland)荣获了2009年的该项殊荣。

《尼德兰》被称为“后911”小说,讲述了一位荷兰裔资产分析师及其英格兰裔的妻子以及他们的子女在纽约经历911,尤其是911对他们所造成的影响的故事。这次获奖也意味着奥尼尔的成就达到一个制高点。此前,尽管这部作品受到广泛的赞誉,但是却被国家图书奖(National Book Awards)和国家图书批评家奖(National Book Critics Circle awards)拒之门外。

“笔友会/福克纳小说奖”的授奖仪式将会在美国东部时间5月9日举行。届时,奥尼尔先生将可以从“笔友会/福克纳小说奖”基金会获得1万5千美元的奖金。

进入“笔友会/福克纳小说奖”最后角逐的共有5位作家的5部作品。另外的4位进入候选名单的分别是:萨拉·湘莲·毕楠(Sarah Shun-lien Bynum)的《韩佩尔夫人的一生》(Ms. Hempel Chronicles);苏珊·崔(Susan Choi)的《有趣的人》(A Person of Interest);理查德·普赖斯(Richard Price)的《奢华生活》(Lush Life);以及荣·拉什(Ron Rash)的《塞丽娜》(Serena)。这四位作者也将每人获得5,000美元的奖金。
【以上信息来源:扭腰时报